Yeah exactly. He's officiated in a lot of matches involving asian teams, and he's punished them for things. So what? Unless there is something actually wrong with his decisions it's of no relevance, and even if he does make errors, accusing someone of racism requires a bit more than just "you did something which had a negative impact on someone that happened to be of X race".

FaaipDeOiad, where did you get that avatar and who is it? I've seen it before on another forum a long long time ago.

Its the Doctor of Gonzo journalism. Although Gonzo doesn't come close to describing the excrement posing as reporting regarding Broad. He clearly sees the referee's role as being an activist one, but the comparisons were dodgy, and it sounded like one of Goebbel's diatribes ('the dreaded Broad', 'Broad was defeated by legendary fast bowler'). I'm pretty sure that Ganguly's ban came after repeated instances of the same offence.

Originally Posted by Irfan

We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team

Ganguly has been a shocker with overrates and it used to annoy the hell out of me, but I distinctly remember arguing against Ganguly's ban for his offence because the poor over rates that much had a lot to do with Salman Butt's cramping during his maiden ton and having to dry the ball almost every 2nd delivery because it was wet.

IMO they jumped on the "Let's make Ganguly pay for his past overrate offences" at the wrong time, and even so, continous late overrates still isn't worse than an offensive racist remark. No way in hell.

"I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."

Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.

Chris Broad is an idiot. And he likes to be at the centre of attention. All that is obvious. But racism is too strong a work, like the others have pointed out. I still have no doubt that he is amongst the worse match referees today and needs to be taken out. But he doesn't even compare to that joker Cammie Smith.

We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.

Ganguly has been a shocker with overrates and it used to annoy the hell out of me, but I distinctly remember arguing against Ganguly's ban for his offence because the poor over rates that much had a lot to do with Salman Butt's cramping during his maiden ton and having to dry the ball almost every 2nd delivery because it was wet.

IMO they jumped on the "Let's make Ganguly pay for his past overrate offences" at the wrong time, and even so, continous late overrates still isn't worse than an offensive racist remark. No way in hell.

Let's remember that Lehmann made the remark in question when he was off the field, though. It doesn't excuse it, but I think you can make a fair argument that banning a player for a long period for something he said on the way to the dressing room is a bit out of the sphere of control for a match referee, while consistently slow over rates are not.

It's cold on the outside they say
But the cold leaves you clear while the heat leaves a haze

Who banned Lehmann then? The ACB/Cricket Australia? I can't recall it was that long ago.

And I'm sure if someone is heard showing dissent to an umpire off the field, but on the way to the dressing room, he'd still be punished by the match referee.

It was the ICC itself, rather than the Match Referee. Clive Lloyd (who was the referee) reprimanded Lehmann, and Malcolm Speed (interestingly another person who is regularly accused of racism on ICF and similar sites) suspended Lehmann, after the apology was issued.

From an Age article:

"I am aware that Mr Lehmann has apologised for his actions and that the Sri Lankan team was reluctant to lay any formal charges," Speed said.

"I have, however, carefully considered the situation and in the interests of eradicating racial vilification in international cricket I am bound to lay this charge." Lehmann was severely reprimanded by match referee Clive Lloyd, who acted on an informal complaint from Sri Lanka's team management after the Australian was overheard making a racial slur as he entered the dressing room after he was run out in his team's run chase.

The middle-order batsman also drew strong censure from Sri Lankan cricket chairman Hemaka Amerasuriya, who said if the comments were not racist they were close to it. "We are very unhappy this has happened," Amerasuriya said. "I'm not going to make a broad statement about Australia being racist, but comments of this nature are really unfortunate.

"There is no doubt that this borders on racism."

And I think with the referee and dissent, it would depend. If a player was showing dissent while walking off the field, certainly, but if he was overheard saying he edged an LBW call or something while walking into the dressing room, I doubt he would be punished for dissent, at least not by the match ref. I don't think anyone would say Lehmann didn't deserve the suspension, but it's not as though he racially abused a player on the field, in which case he would have recieved a much bigger penalty, certainly more than Ganguly did. Apples and oranges.

It doesn't matter where Lehmann racially abused the SriLankan Player, the fact is he did is as a cricketer, it was as part of his frustration on the cricket field, hence it is still a much lesser punishment. He should have got a life ban for such an act.

That said, this thread is not about Lehmann and his racial outbursts. This article in the first post tried to paint Broad as a racist by comparing apples and oranges, by putting up incorrect information. Broad didn't ban Lehman, ICC did. Broad's playing career has nothing to do with his role as a referee.

Let's remember that Lehmann made the remark in question when he was off the field, though. It doesn't excuse it, but I think you can make a fair argument that banning a player for a long period for something he said on the way to the dressing room is a bit out of the sphere of control for a match referee, while consistently slow over rates are not.

H. Singh should have been sorted out earlier, he was chucking with impunity for years. Broad wasn't afraid of being called a racist (which is the logical conclusion of choice for many). Do we have any1 else as brave as Broad on the panel? And why'd he leave?